On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Marc Cousin<cousinmarc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It really has very little impact. It only affects index scans, and
>> even then only if effective_cache_size is less than the size of the
>> table.
>>
>> Essentially, when this kicks in, it models the effect that if you are
>> index scanning a table much larger than the size of your cache, you
>> might have to reread some blocks that you previously read in during
>> *that same index scan*.
>
> Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me. Still, I think the doc could be
> improved on this point (sorry to be a bit obsessed with that, but I'm one of
> the french translators, so I like the doc to be perfect :) )
Yes, I agree. I was confused for quite a long time, too, until I read
the code. I think many people think this value is much more important
than it really is.
(That having been said, I have no current plans to write such a doc
patch myself.)
...Robert